Looking at the light curve, I'm pretty proud of the visual observers. Your observations are mostly fitting into a peak-peak distribution of about 0.5mag, meaning the RMS uncertainty is in the 0.1-0.2mag range. Not bad!
I am NOT so pleased about the digital observers. Your observations are also mostly fitting into a peak-peak distribution of 0.5mag. Your distribution should be at most 0.05mag, or a factor of ten better. It is not equipment, as Ulisse Munari's ANS consortium in Italy can achieve 0.012mag total uncertainty between multiple observers, using amateur telescopes and CCDs. I think the difference is in technique. AAVSO observers are not transforming their data, are not observing with proper cadence and multiple image sets, are not watching for saturation or other defects in their images.
The professionals are NOT observing this nova - yet. It is still too bright for even a one-meter telescope; Swift is totally saturated with its imager, etc. It is up to us to create a quality light curve, one that shows all of the low-level bumps and wiggles. It is not just this nova, but any improvement we make here will also make subsequent novae observations better, and give better results for Jeno's project.
So what I am willing to do is work with each individual observer, but in the public forum. Let's examine images, consider how to obtain and use transformation coefficients, and learn techniques to improve the photometry and the reported uncertainties. It is an investment of my time and that of other photometrists that should reap rewards - if you are willing to suffer a small amount of public scrutiny of your data. Those who are AAVSO members can share their images through VPHOT; others can upload requested images to our ftp site where we can link to them for examples.
There are a couple of dozen digital observers of Nova Del 2013. Are you willing to help out?